Safe to assume you’re getting net meetering? That is likely more valuable.
Basically, I want net metering to be proportional to carbon (and therefore peaker plant use). It's less about the amount of money I get back.
In related news, my batteries aggressively charge themselves during the morning CO2 peak because power is cheap then. They should sell solar production into the grid during those hours and start charging at ~ 10 am.
Some jurisdictions give you a much better deal than they ought to, some much worse.
It probably won’t stabilize into something more reasonable until people who both use and produce power are much more common.
The problem with peaker plants is it’s expensive keeping them around when they only operate for a short time, and bigger peaks mean more capacity needed.
Maybe I don't understand.
Then you would receive very little compensation for the useless solar you send to the grid at mid day and pay very high prices for any power you use from the grid at night.
Plus, they should pay more for peak usage hours (4-9pm and 6-10am) than they charge over night (the overnight power produces less than 70% as much carbon as peak power in the morning and evening), so I'd still end up selling back at a profit vs. storing electricity for my own use. Also, the cost minimizer in the battery would then charge the battery at noon, when electricity is worthless (unlike what it does now).
I want to set the battery to "minimize atmospheric CO2". The details of my power bill are rounding errors vs. the ongoing damages I am already incurring from climate change.
If you can't, and I don't think you can, why do you claim his solar is useless?
I'd guess a early-spring/ late-fall weekend might be the best place to find such a day.
(Weirdly, just checking this myself and his complaint that the battery charges at 9am seems to actually be the best time for a battery to charge as net demand is lowest then)
There's been lots of headlines over the last few years about negative prices and too much solar, but any time I checked, they generally still have fossil generation running.
Here's some modelling suggesting 120 Billion saving from distributed solar and batteries:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f4637895cfc8d77860d0...
Why would you take the number before grid wind, grid solar, and home solar?
I think the relevant number is is demand minus grid solar, grid wind, grid nuclear, and probably hydro. My point is that it is inefficient.
It makes no sense to idle a commercial solar or wind farm with a purchase contract so that the electric company can also purchase residential solar.
It would be entirely different if the electric company had massive storage, but they don't. The residential solar generators do. It makes most sense for the electric company to buy residential solar only when it has been time shifted to when grid farms are not producing.
Once they deploy 5G or so more you might start to hit this problem, but it's never been a problem till now.
Value of solar tariffs that work this out in detail get pushback from grid operators for being too high, same as net metering. It's almost as if they don't like paying a fair rate for energy and their excuses are exactly that.